Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sensitivity: General
Creative people together transforming our world
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land – Freshwater
Ecological Impact Assessment
Section 92 Response
Prepared for Central Hawke's Bay District Council
Prepared by Beca Limited
Doc ID: T:D.66
19 August 2021
| Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | i
Sensitivity: General
Revision History
Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date
1 Sandy Huang Draft for technical review 19/07/2021
2 Sandy Huang Response to reviewer comments 16/08/2021
3 Garrett Hall Final 19/08/2021
Document Acceptance
Action Name Signed Date
Prepared by Sandy Huang
19/08/21
Reviewed by Garrett Hall
19/08/21
Approved by Rachael Shaw
on behalf of Beca Limited
© Beca 2021 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).
This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance
with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own
risk.
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | ii
Sensitivity: General
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
2 Site Location and Ecological Context ............................................................. 5
3 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Desktop review ................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Field Investigations .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Assessment methodology ................................................................................................................ 7
4 Section 92 Questions ........................................................................................ 9
4.1 Question 29...................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Questions 24 and 30 ...................................................................................................................... 12
5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 16
6 References ....................................................................................................... 18
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Ecological Impact Assessment (EIANZ methodology)
Appendix 2 – Species recorded within wetland vegetation plots
| Introduction |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 3
Sensitivity: General
1 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to determine the ecological values of the freshwater features and the ecological
impacts of the treated wastewater discharge to land within the project site in response to the section 92
request associated with the discharge of treated wastewater from the Takapau Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) to adjacent farmland via irrigation.
Central Hawkes Bay District Council (CHBDC) is in the process applying for resource consents for the
discharge of treated wastewater from Takapau WWTP. The treated wastewater currently undergoes
treatment in a single oxidation pond. Pond treated wastewater is discharged to a wetland alongside the
Makaretu River and eventually to the Makaretu River near the Burnside Road bridge.
The preferred option for long term management of collected wastewater at Takapau is to continue treating in
the oxidation pond system, with some enhancements, and to irrigate most of the treated wastewater to land
on adjacent farmland and to discharge to the Makaretu River when storage has been exhausted and flow in
the river is above a predetermined minimum. This diversion of treated wastewater to land will be conducted
using a staged discharge methodology. The proposed irrigation area is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. The proposed irrigation layout for the land discharge of the Takapau WWTP.
| Introduction |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 4
Sensitivity: General
A resource consent application has been lodged with Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC). Further
information has been requested by HBRC to assess the ecological effects of the discharge to land as
follows:
Section 92 Questions
Question 24: As identified on the site visit, a drainage channel/waterway bisects the site along the toe of the
upper terrace and is within the proposed irrigation area. Please provide an assessment of the potential
effects of the irrigation to land on this channel and surrounding area. In addition, please provide comment
whether the 20m setback proposed at Condition 9 will be suitable for this channel.
Question 29: Please provide an assessment of the ecological values of the overland flow path of the
existing discharge (proposed HRLP) with comment on the effect on staged reduction in direct discharge to
this overflow path that is proposed.
Question 30: Please provide an assessment of the ecological value of the existing drainage channels
located within the proposed area of irrigation (including the ephemeral overland flow channel identified in
point 23, above).
In response to these questions, the scope of this report includes:
● A desk-based review of publicly accessible reports or information.
● A site visit to the location of the proposed discharge on the 22nd of June 2021.
● An assessment of the ecological values of the Site and the receiving environment.
● An assessment of ecological effects and recommended mitigation prepared in general accordance with
the EIANZ Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines (Roper-Lindsay et al., 2018).
| Site Location and Ecological Context |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 5
Sensitivity: General
2 Site Location and Ecological Context
Takapau WWTP is located at Burnside Road adjacent to the Makaretu River Bridge in the Central Hawkes
Bay, approximately 2 km North-East of Takapau (Figure 2). The adjoining land use is predominantly
pastoral. Treated wastewater is discharged, via an effluent chamber, to a wetland drain before flowing freely
into the Makaretu River.
The site is within the Heretaunga ecological district, in the Hawkes Bay ecological region (McEwen, 1987).
The district includes a number of aggrading rivers, extensive broad plains, river terraces, and hill country
composed of Pleistocene and Holocene gravels and alluvium (McEwen, 1987). It is one of the driest areas in
the North Island with frequent summer droughts (McEwen, 1987). The district has undergone extensive
modification with a large proportion of land converted to pasture and horticultural land (McEwen, 1987).
The site is in the Makaretu River sub-catchment, which is contained within the wider Tukituki catchment. The
Makaretu River sub-catchment is approximately 80 km2 and is in the south-western, inland area of the
Hawke’s Bay Region. The sub-catchment is a linear feature draining from the southwest in the foothills of the
Ruahine Ranges (at approximately 400 m MSL) onto the Ruataniwha Plains (Forbes, A.; Stepheson, B.;
Cameron, F.; Herbert, S; Bell, 2011).
Figure 2. The Takapau site within the surrounding environment.
| Methodology |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 6
Sensitivity: General
3 Methodology
3.1 Desktop review
A desk-based study was undertaken using ecological information from the following sources:
● Hawkes Bay Regional Council geospatial layers including catchment and hydrology layers
● Freshwater Environments of New Zealand (FENZ) estimated historic extent of wetlands in New Zealand
geospatial layer.
● Google Earth and LINZ aerial imagery
● Retrolens historical imagery
● Other publicly accessible reports or information
3.2 Field Investigations
A site visit was undertaken on the 22nd June 2021 to conduct a wetland delineation and habitat assessments
to provide a high-level indication of baseline ecological condition and assess the potential effects of
discharge of treated wastewater to land on the ecological values of the site. The weather was overcast and
in the two weeks preceding the site visit there had been 123 mm of rainfall (Waipawa EWS; NIWA, 2021).
3.2.1 Wetland Delineation
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) defines wetlands as, “permanently or intermittently wet areas,
shallow water, and land water margins that support a natural ecosystem of plants and animals that are
adapted to wet conditions”.
The National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (2020; NES:FW) sets out controls relating to
developments relating to ‘natural wetlands’. ‘Natural wetlands’ are defined in the NES:FW (via the National
Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management (2020; NPS-FM) as:
‘… a wetland (as defined in the Act) that is not:
a) A wetland constructed by artificial means (unless it was constructed to offset impacts on, or restore,
an existing or former natural wetland); or
b) A geothermal wetland; or
c) Any area of improved pasture that, at the commencement date, is dominated by (that is more than
50% of) exotic pasture species and is subject to temporary rain-derived water pooling.’
A desktop and field assessment of ecology, hydrology, wetland and catchment characteristics was
undertaken to classify the potential wetland (e.g. non-wetland, artificial wetland, or natural wetland) in
accordance with the Landcare Research wetland delineation procedure (Figure 3; Clarkson, 2018).
| Methodology |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 7
Sensitivity: General
Figure 3. Landcare Research hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation delineation tool. Wetland indicator status abbreviations: FAC = facultative; FACW = facultative wetland; OBL = obligate wetland.
3.2.2 Watercourse Assessment (Ecoline)
Watercourse assessments were completed on the 22nd of June 2021 following methods outlined in the
Watercourse Assessment Methodology: Infrastructure and Ecology Document (Version 2.0) at a
representative reach to assess the baseline condition of the existing watercourse. Data collected included:
channel condition and morphology, bank and channel modification, stream bank erosion, debris jams,
streambed substrate composition, channel shade and riparian vegetation.
3.3 Assessment methodology
A desktop assessment of ecological effects was undertaken in accordance with Ecological Impact
Assessment (EcIA) EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (Roper-
Lindsay et al., 2018).
The EIANZ guidelines set out a methodology to assign ecological value to species and ecosystems based
on four assessment criteria which are consistent with significance assessment criteria set out in the
Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (2019) Appendix 1: Criteria for identifying
significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitat of indigenous fauna. These are reproduced in this
report as Appendix 1 Tables 1.1-1.4. In summary:
● Attributes are considered when considering ecological value or importance. They relate to matters such
as representativeness, the rarity and distinctiveness, diversity and patterns, and the broader ecological
context.
| Methodology |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 8
Sensitivity: General
● Determining Factors for valuing terrestrial species; terrestrial species span a continuum of very high to
negligible, depending on aspects such as whether species are native or exotic, have threat status, and
their abundance and commonality at the site impacted
● Ecological Values are scored based on an expert judgement, qualitative and quantitative data collected.
Once ecological values have been identified and valued, the severity of potential impacts is assessed by
determining the change from baseline ecological values likely to occur as a result of the proposal/project
along the lines of a magnitude of effect as determined by the criteria set out in Appendix 1:Table 1.5.
Finally, once these two factors have been determined (the ecological value and the magnitude of effect), an
overall level of effect on each of the identified ecological values is assessed (Appendix 1:Table 1.6).
| Section 92 Questions |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 9
Sensitivity: General
4 Section 92 Questions
4.1 Question 29
Please provide an assessment of the ecological values of the overland flow path of the existing discharge
(proposed HRLP) with comment on the effect on staged reduction in direct discharge to this overflow path
that is proposed.
4.1.1 Ecological Value
The overland flow path (hereafter referred to as Site 1; Figure 4) was identified as a potential wetland
based on desktop information and then ground-truthed during a site visit on 22nd June 2021 using the
Wetland Delineation Protocol (Clarkson, 2018). A full list of vegetation recorded in these areas is included in
Appendix 2.
Site 1 is located on the Makaretu River edge below the Takapau WWTP and is the current point of discharge
(Figure 5). It has an area extent of approximately 331m². It consists of silt and sludge, with two small open
water bodies approximately 20m² and 9m² in area extent, and 10cm deep. The banks are approximately
50cm in height and gradually flattens out.
Site 1 is dominated by watercress (Nasturtium spp.) and mercer grass (Paspalum distichum). Other species
present include flax (Phormium tenax), broadleaf dock (Rumex obtusifolius), cabbage tree (Cordyline
australis), sedges (Carex spp.), and curled dock (Rumex crispus). Site 1 passed the Rapid Test, Dominance
Test, and the Prevalence Test.
Indicators of hydric soil were not assessed as a soil sample using the auger could not be safely obtained.
Based on historical imagery from 1943 (see Figure 6; Retrolens), this area may have been part of a riverine
wetland associated with the floodplains of the Makaretu River. However, its hydrology has been significantly
modified by land use change and is currently driven by the Takapau WWTP discharges. Therefore, the NPS-
FM ‘constructed wetland’ exclusion criteria applies, and Site 1 was classified as an induced (reverted)
wetland. Given this, the constructed wetland does not meet the definition of a ‘natural wetland’ in terms of
the NES:FW.
Overall, Site 1 is assessed as having Low current ecological value based on moderate ratings for
Rarity/Distinctiveness, and low ratings for representativeness, diversity and pattern, and ecological context
(Table 1).
Table 1. Scoring and justification for assigned ecological value to Site 1.
Matter Rating Justification
Representativeness Low Constructed wetland sustained by Takapau WWTP
discharge.
Rarity/Distinctiveness Moderate Wetland ecosystem.
Nationally common indigenous species.
Diversity and Pattern Low Low diversity.
Excavation and bank modification.
Ecological context Low Buffering functions.
Surroundings dominated by agricultural land-use.
| Section 92 Questions |
Waipukurau Service Centre - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3257363-1427452915-582 | 19/08/2021 | 10
Sensitivity: General
Figure 4. Site 1 at the time of site visit on 22nd June 2021, showing the 20m2 water body (top left and right), 9m2 water body (bottom left), and general vegetation (bottom right).
| Section 92 Questions |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 11
Sensitivity: General
Figure 5. Site 1 identified as a potential wetland (indicated by purple polygon) and its location.
Figure 6. Aerial imagery of the river and potential wetland from 1943 (left, Source: Retrolens), and 2021 (right). Site 1 is indicated by a purple polygon in the imagery from 2021
| Section 92 Questions |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 12
Sensitivity: General
4.1.2 Magnitude of Effects
A potential ecological effect of discharge of treated wastewater to land on Site 1 is Alterations to
hydrology.
The reduction of discharge from Takapau WWTP to Makaretu River through Site 1, will reduce the amount of
water entering Site 1. Site 1 is considered an induced wetland with the discharge supporting its hydrologic
functions. Therefore, the cessation of discharge will potentially cause Site 1 to cease being a wetland and is
therefore assessed as having a High magnitude of effect.
4.1.3 Overall Level of Effects
The Overall Level of Effect on Site 1 is considered Low, as its Ecological Value was Low, and the Magnitude
of Effect was high.
4.2 Questions 24 and 30
(24) As identified on the site visit, a drainage channel/waterway bisects the site along the toe of the upper
terrace and is within the proposed irrigation area. Please provide an assessment of the potential effects of
the irrigation to land on this channel and surrounding area. In addition, please provide comment whether the
20m setback proposed at Condition 9 will be suitable for this channel.
(30) Please provide an assessment of the ecological value of the existing drainage channels located within
the proposed area of irrigation (including the ephemeral overland flow channel identified in point 23, above).
4.2.1 Ecological Value
a. Existing drainage channel (Site 2)
The existing drainage channel (hereafter referred to as Site 2; Figure 7) was identified as a potential
wetland based on desktop information and then ground-truthed during a site visit on 22nd June 2021 using
the Wetland Delineation Protocol (Clarkson, 2018). A full list of vegetation recorded in these areas is
included in Appendix 2.
Site 2 is approximately 319m² and is situated to the southwest on the property (Figure 8). The surroundings
consist of pasture grass, thistles, and some willows. It is not fenced to exclude stock. The presence of a
Maimai suggests that Site 2 is used for duck shooting.
Site 2 was a small, elongated depression with steep banks of approximately 10m on only one side. A large
amount of inorganic debris and building rubble has been discarded into the channel. The landscape
characteristics suggest that the site may be seasonally dry. It contained approximately 30cm deep of surface
water, but this was likely due to recent rain. Stock are not excluded from the area and damage from stock is
evident (the area is currently used for stock watering).
Site 2 is dominated by willow weed (Persicaria maculosa) and mercer grass (Paspalum distichum). Other
species present include marsh cudweed (Gnaphalium uliginosum), watercress (Nasturtium spp.), and curled
dock (Rumex crispus). It passed the Rapid Test, Dominance Test, and the Prevalence Test.
A sample soil revealed pale low chroma colours and mottling indicating hydric soil conditions. The soil past
40cm depth was also wet.
Based on the above, Site 2 is classified as an ephemeral wetland.
Overall, Site 2 is assessed as having Low ecological value based on low ratings for representativeness,
rarity/distinctiveness, and diversity and pattern and ecological context (Table 2).
| Section 92 Questions |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 13
Sensitivity: General
Table 2. Scoring and justification for assigned ecological value to Site 2.
Matter Rating Justification
Representativeness Low Ephemeral wetland, seasonally dry.
Rarity/Distinctiveness Low Dominated by exotic species.
Diversity and Pattern Low Low diversity.
Ongoing stock access.
Ecological context Low Modified habitat subject to stock access, discarded
inorganic debris, and duck shooting activity.
Surroundings dominated by agricultural land-use.
Figure 7. Site 2 at the time of site visit.
| Section 92 Questions |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 14
Sensitivity: General
Figure 8. Site 2 indicated by purple polygon and Site 3 indicated by light blue line, as well as their locations.
b. Ephemeral overland flow channel (Site 3)
The ephemeral overland flow channel (hereafter referred to as Site 3; Figure 7) is artificially constructed
and flows towards Site 2. To the east of Site 2, no overland flow path was present, only a farm race (as
identified on Figure). Banks are approximately 60cm high and channel is approximately 2m wide, contains
rooted vegetation throughout, and appears to be dug out. It is surrounded by grazed pasture and is not
fenced to exclude stock.
Site 3 has been classified as a modified overland flow path due to the absence of surface water during the
site visit, despite recent rain, and the rooting of terrestrial vegetation across the cross-sectional width of the
channel. Species present included pasture grass, plantain (Plantago spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), and
narrow-leaved dock (Rumex acetosa).
Site 3 are assessed as having Very Low freshwater ecological value based on very low ratings for
representativeness, and low ratings for rarity/distinctiveness, diversity and pattern, and ecological context
(Table 3).
Table 3. Scoring and justification for assigned ecological value to Site 3.
Matter Rating Justification
Representativeness Very Low Significant channel modification has reduced habitat
heterogeneity and riparian vegetation is largely
absent.
Rarity/Distinctiveness Low Dominated by exotic species.
Diversity and Pattern Very Low Natural diversity and pattern compromised.
Ongoing stock access.
| Section 92 Questions |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 15
Sensitivity: General
Matter Rating Justification
No flow – Low flow conditions.
Little habitat complexity.
Ecological context Low Highly modified habitat subject to stock access, lack
of riparian habitat.
Figure 7. Site 3 at the time of site visit looking toward Site 2.
4.2.2 Magnitude of Effects
A potential ecological effect of discharge of treated wastewater to land on Site 2 and 3 are Alterations to
hydrology and the Degradation of water and habitat quality.
a. Alterations to hydrology
Treated wastewater discharged to land will percolate through the soil and drain into Site 2 and Site 3 on the
adjacent farm. This will potentially cause a minor change in the hydrological regime by increasing soil
moisture and the amount of water at Site 2 and Site 3. This is expected to cause no more than a minimal
shift away from existing baseline conditions and thus is assessed as having a Low magnitude of effect.
b. Degradation of water and habitat quality
Discharge of treated wastewater, and eventually UV treated wastewater, to land via irrigation will be partially
offset by a reduction in fertiliser application onto the farmland. However, overall, there will be a slight
increase in nutrient losses to groundwater at the Site.
Nevertheless, the increase in nutrient inputs into Site 2 and Site 3 is assessed as a Low magnitude of effect,
based on the expectation that it will cause a minor shift away from existing baseline conditions.
| Conclusion |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 16
Sensitivity: General
4.2.3 Overall Level of Effects
The ecological effects of the proposed treated wastewater discharge have been avoided in the first instance
by designing the system to ensure application rates are matched to the soils and storage is provided for so
over irrigation and runoff do not occur.
The Overall Level of Effect on both Site 2 and 3 are considered Low, as their Ecological Values were Low
and Very Low respectively, and the Magnitude of Effect was Negligible for both.
5 Conclusion
In response to Question 29 as part of the Section 92 request:
Question 29: Please provide an assessment of the ecological values of the overland flow path of the
existing discharge (proposed HRLP) with comment on the effect on staged reduction in direct discharge to
this overflow path that is proposed.
The overland flow path (Site 1) was assessed as having Low ecological value. As its hydrologic functions
are currently supported by the Takapau WWTP discharge, the wetland is expected to no longer exist
following a reduction in the volume of treated wastewater discharged. This is assessed as having a High
magnitude of effect. Site 1 is considered to be constructed wetland does not meet the definition of a ‘natural
wetland’ in terms of the NES:FW.
Therefore, the Overall Level of Effect of staged reduction in direct discharge to this overland flow path (Site
1) that is proposed is Low. Overall effects are summarised in Table 4.
In response to Questions 24 and 30 as part of the Section 92 request:
Question 24: As identified on the site visit, a drainage channel/waterway bisects the site along the toe of the
upper terrace and is within the proposed irrigation area. Please provide an assessment of the potential
effects of the irrigation to land on this channel and surrounding area. In addition, please provide comment
whether the 20m setback proposed at Condition 9 will be suitable for this channel.
Question 30: Please provide an assessment of the ecological value of the existing drainage channels
located within the proposed area of irrigation (including the ephemeral overland flow channel identified in
point 23, above).
Both the drainage channels (Site 2) and ephemeral overland flow channel (Site 3) were found to be
compromised by land use pressures and were assessed as having Low and Very Low ecological values
respectively. The ephemeral overland flow channel at Site 3 flows towards Site 2 and is not connected to the
Makaretu River.
Given the Very Low ecological value of Site 3, lack of connection to the Makaretu River and absent surface
water despite recent rain, a 20m setback may not be necessary to mitigate potential effects for this site.
The proposed discharge has been designed to minimise effects on the receiving environment by ensuring
application rates are matched to the soils and storage is provided for so over irrigation and runoff do not
occur. As such, it is expected to result in a low increase in nutrient inputs into Site 2 and 3 or a minor shift
from baseline conditions, and is assessed as a Low magnitude of effect.
Therefore, the Overall Level of Effect to the drainage channels (Site 2) and ephemeral overland flow channel
(Site 3) is Very Low. Overall effects are summarised in Table 4.
| Conclusion |
Pōrangahau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1076 | 19/08/2021 | 17
Sensitivity: General
Table 4. Summary of potential ecological effects on ecological values including magnitude, level of effects and recommended mitigation measures
Potential ecological effect
Ecological component
Ecological Value
Magnitude of Effect (unmitigated)
Overall Level of Effect
Effects Management
Alterations to
hydrology Overland flow path (Site 1)
Low High Low None
Existing drainage
channel (Site 2) Low Low Very Low
Ephemeral overland flow channel (Site 3)
Very Low Low Very Low
Degradation of
water and habitat
quality
Existing drainage
channel (Site 2)
Low Low Very Low Reduction in fertiliser
application to adjacent
farmland to partially offset
nutrient application via
wastewater irrigation. Ephemeral overland flow channel (Site 3)
Very Low Low Very Low
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 18
Sensitivity: General
6 References
Clarkson, B. (2018). Wetland Delineation Protocols. Contract Report: LC3354.
Forbes, A.; Stepheson, B.; Cameron, F.; Herbert, S; Bell, T. (2011). Tukituki Catchment Terrestrial Ecology
Characterisation. HBRC Plan No.4294.
https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000028/Evidence-Submitters-
evidence/0ecae7685f/Gerard-Land-Design-Evidence-Sara-Gerard-Appendix.pdf
McEwen, W. M. (1987). Ecological Regions and Districts of New Zealand. Department of Conservation.
NIWA. (2021). CliFlo: New Zealand National Climate Database.
Roper-Lindsay, J., Fuller, S. A., Hooson, S., Sanders, M. D., & Ussher, G. T. (2018). Ecological impact
assessment. EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. 2nd
edition. Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand.
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 19
Sensitivity: General
Appendix 1 – Ecological Impact Assessment (EIANZ methodology)
1
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 20
Sensitivity: General
Appendix 1: Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines
Assigning Ecological Value
Freshwater and terrestrial habitat
The ecological values of freshwater and terrestrial systems (riparian vegetation, habitats and species
present) potentially impacted by the works were assessed against the following attributes:
• Representativeness;
• Rarity or distinctiveness;
• Diversity or pattern; and
• Ecological context.
These attributes are described in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 below.
Table 1.1. Matters that may be considered when assigning ecological value to a freshwater site or area.
Matters Attributes to be assessed
Representativeness Extent to which site/catchment is typical or characteristic
Stream order
Permanent, intermittent or ephemeral waterway
Catchment size
Standing water characteristics
Rarity/distinctiveness Supporting nationally or locally threatened, at risk or uncommon species
National distribution limits
Endemism
Distinctive ecological features
Type of lake/pond/wetland/spring
Diversity and pattern Level of natural diversity
Diversity metrics
Complexity of community
Biogeographical considerations - pattern, complexity, size, shape
Ecological context Stream order
Instream habitat
Riparian habitat
Local environmental conditions and influences, site history and development
Intactness, health and resilience of populations and communities
Contribution to ecological networks, linkages, pathways
Role in ecosystem functioning – high level, proxies
Table 1.2. Attributes to be considered when assigning ecological value or importance to a site or area of vegetation/ habitat/community.
Matters Attributes to be assessed
Representativeness Criteria for representative vegetation and aquatic habitats:
Typical structure and composition
Indigenous species dominate
Expected species and tiers are present
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 21
Sensitivity: General
Matters Attributes to be assessed
Thresholds may need to be lowered where all examples of a type are strongly modified
Criteria for representative species and species assemblages:
Species assemblages that are typical of the habitat
Indigenous species that occur in most of the guilds expected of the habitat type
Rarity/distinctiveness Criteria for rare/ distinctive vegetation and habitats:
Naturally uncommon, or induced scarcity
Amount of habitat or vegetation remaining
Distinctive ecological features
National priority for protection
Criteria for rare/ distinctive species or species assemblages:
Habitat supporting nationally Threatened or At Risk species, or locally uncommon species
Regional or national distribution limits of species or communities
Unusual species or assemblages
Endemism
Diversity and pattern Level of natural diversity, abundance, and distribution
Biodiversity reflecting underlying diversity
Biogeographical considerations, considerations of lifecycles, daily or seasonal cycles of habitat availability and utilisation
Ecological context Site history, and local environmental conditions which have influenced the development of habitats and communities
The essential characteristics that determine an ecosystem’s integrity, form, functioning, and resilience (form “intrinsic value” as defined in RMA)
Size, shape and buffering
Condition and sensitivity to change
Contribution of the site to ecological networks, linkages, pathways and the protection and exchange of genetic material
Species role in ecosystem functioning – high level, key species identification, habitat as proxy
The freshwater habitat features were assessed considering each of the attributes in Table 1.1, and terrestrial
habitat features were assessed considering attributes in Table 1.2. Features of interest were subjectively
given a rating on a scale of ‘Very Low’ to ‘High’ for each attribute and assigned a value in accordance with
the description provided in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3. Rating system for assessing ecological value of terrestrial and freshwater systems (Roper-Lindsay et al. 2018)
Value Description
Negligible Feature rates Very Low for at least three assessment attributes and Low to Moderate for the remaining attribute(s).
Low Feature rates Very Low to Low for most assessment attributes and moderate for one.
Limited ecological value other than providing habitat for introduced or tolerant indigenous species.
Moderate Feature rates High for one assessment attribute and Low to Moderate for the remainder, OR the project area rates Moderate for at least two attributes and Very Low to Low for the rest.
Likely to be important at the level of the Ecological District.
High Feature rates High for at least two assessment attributes and Low to Moderate for the remainder, OR the project area rates High for one attribute and Moderate for the rest. Likely to be regionally important.
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 22
Sensitivity: General
Value Description
Very High Feature rates High for at least three assessment attributes.
Likely to be nationally important.
Species
The EIANZ provides a method for assigning value (Table 1.4) to species for the purposes of assessing
actual and potential effects of activities.
Table 1.4. Criteria for assigning ecological values to species
Ecological Value Species
Very High Threatened (Nationally Critical, Nationally Endangered, Nationally Vulnerable)
High At Risk (Declining, Recovering, Relict, Naturally Uncommon)
Medium Native – Not threatened
Low Introduced
Assigning Magnitude of Impacts
The magnitude of impacts is determined by the scale (temporal and spatial) of potential impacts identified
and the degree of ecological change that is expected to occur as a result of the proposed activity (Roper-
Lindsay et al. 2018).
Based on the assessor’s knowledge and experience, the magnitude of identified impacts on the ecological
values within the project area and zone of influence were assessed and rated on a scale of ‘Very High’ to
‘Negligible’ based on the description provided in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5. Criteria for describing the magnitude of effects (Roper-Lindsay et al. 2018)
Magnitude Description
Very high Total loss or very major alteration to key features of existing conditions, such that the post-development attributes will be fundamentally changed and may be lost altogether; and/or loss of a very high proportion of the known population or range of the feature.
High Major loss or alteration of key features of existing conditions, such that post-development attributes will be fundamentally changed; and/or loss of a high proportion of the known population or range of the feature.
Moderate Loss or alteration to one or more key features of the existing condition, such that post-development attributes will be partially changed; and/or loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range of the feature.
Low Minor shift away from existing conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible, but underlying attributes will be similar to pre-development circumstances; and/or having a minor effect on the known population or range of the feature.
Negligible Very slight change from existing conditions. Change barely distinguishable, approximating “no change”; and/or having negligible effect on the known population or range of the feature.
Assessment also considered the temporal scale at which potential impacts were likely to occur:
● Permanent (>25 years).
● Long-term (15-25 years).
● Medium-term (5-15 years).
● Short-term (0-5 years).
● Temporary (during construction)
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 23
Sensitivity: General
Assessing the Level of Effects
The overall level of effect on each ecological feature identified within the zone of influence were determined
by considering the magnitude of impacts and the values of impacted ecological features (Roper-Lindsay et al.
2018).
Results from the assessment of ecological value and the magnitude of identified impacts were used to
determine the level or extent of the overall impacts on identified ecological features within the project area and
zone of influence using the matrix described in Table 1.6.
Table 1.6. Matrix combining magnitude and value for determining the level of ecological impacts (Roper-Lindsay et al. 2018).
Effect Level Ecological and/or Conservation Value
Very High High Moderate Low Negligible
Very High Very High Very High High Moderate Low
Mag
nit
ud
e
High Very High Very High Moderate Low Very Low
Moderate High High Moderate Low Very Low
Low Moderate Low Low Very Low Very Low
Negligible Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low
Positive Net Gain Net Gain Net Gain Net Gain Net Gain
Results from the matrix were used to determine the type of responses that may be required to mitigate
potential direct and indirect impacts within the project area and within the zone of influence, considering the
following guidelines (Roper-Lindsay et al. 2018):
● A ‘Low’ or ‘Very Low’ level of impact is not normally of concern, though design should take measures to
minimise potential effects.
● A ‘Moderate’ to ‘High’ level of impact indicates a level of impact that qualifies careful assessment on a
case-by-case basis. Such activities could be managed through avoidance (revised design) or appropriate
mitigation. Where avoidance is not possible, no net loss of biodiversity values would be appropriate.
A ‘Very High’ level of impact is are unlikely to be acceptable on ecological grounds alone and should be
avoided. Where avoidance is not possible, a net gain in biodiversity values would be appropriate.
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 24
Sensitivity: General
Appendix 2 – Species recorded within wetland vegetation plots
2
| References |
Takapau Wastewater Discharge to Land - Ecological Impact Assessment | 3256189-1711138617-1152 | 19/08/2021 | 25
Sensitivity: General
Vegetation recorded within wetland vegetation plots onsite
Plot Species Scientific Name Indicator status Dominant
1 Watercress Nasturtium spp. OBL Y
1 Mercer Grass Paspalum distichum FAC Y
1 Cabbage Tree Cordyline australis FACW
1 Sedge Carex spp. OBL
1 New Zealand Flax Phormium tenax FACW
1 Curled Dock Rumex crispus FAC
1 Broadleaf Dock Rumex obtusifolius FAC
2 Willow Weed Persicaria maculosa FACW Y
2 Mercer Grass Paspalum distichum FACW Y
2 Curled Dock Rumex crispus FAC
2 Marsh Cudweed Gonocarpus micranthus FAC
2 Watercress Nasturtium spp. OBL